car tax

[wayne1948]

had a debate about insurance & i say if you are not taxed the insurance is void as it isn't road legal am i right.

[scoobydooby]

It depends on the insurance company and whether or not they have this in their terms and conditions, so you're nearly right.

[wayne1948]

Thanks for that scooby, but the pompus turd that I'm debating this with is an ex chief inspector who thinks he knows it all & i would love to prove him wrong ( dont you hate people like that ) somtime.
Wayne.

[Ethel]

Car insurance is still valid if you are driving without an MOT - to a point.

They will pay out third party claims (exactly as they do if the driver is breaking the law by speeding) BUT will probably use the no MOT to greatly reduce the value of the car that has no MOT.

This is typically the case, but of course insurance policies differ. However, the law does not look favourably on insurance companies who try to wiggle out of third party claims by pointing to the illegality of their insured driver.

[wayne1948]

thanks Ethel but it's car tax that i need to know about
Wayne

[Ethel]

Sorry Wayne, I must have been asleep when I read your question. Have a look at page 44, para 10 of this:

http://www.diamond.co.uk/pdf/DIAM.pdf

This is typical of insurance companies terms and conditions, and clearly states the insurance will be void if there is no current road fund licence.

[wayne1948]

Thank Ethel. I will know sort the posh git out.
Wayne.

[Loosehead]

There's 2 issues here, essentially if you are not road legal the insurance company will use that as a reason not to pay out in the event of a claim. However you would not be prosecuted for no insurance if the insurance would otherwise have been valid. There are some cases where you do not need tax and insurance to be covered, for example if you insure a car but are not currently using it, ie it's parked in your drive way, you'd still want to be covered for theft/fire etc.

[JudgeJ]

Before you sort the posh git out, Wayne, you should bear in mind a number of things:

1. The paragraph to which Ethel refers has nothing to do with the standard motor policy offered by Diamond. It refers to Motor Legal Protection, an add-on to the policy which covers uninsured losses.

2. In any case, there is no mention of vehicle excise licence in the text of para 10 � only Mot (which is not an MoT Test certificate but an exemption certificate from ordinary motor insurance).

3. Diamond�s �General Exceptions to Cover� (p18) make no reference to either untaxed or un MoT�d vehicles.

4. Their para �Care of Your Car� (p.21) only requires that the car is kept roadworthy � not necessarily taxed � and goes on to say that if an incident occurs which was caused by the vehicle being unroadworthy, then their liability will be limited to RTA cover only (i.e. Third Party). They do not seek to void the insurance.

In general insurers are not able to void cover because a car is not taxed. If it were the case, every prosecution for lack of tax would be accompanied by a prosecution for the far more serious offence of no insurance. A visit to your local magistrates� court when they have a DVLA prosecution session will show that this is not the case. It has no material effect on the risk to the insurance company and if they tried to insert such a restriction it would swiftly be struck out at the first legal challenge as an �unfair condition�.

Ethel and I have debated this a number of times before on AB. I have yet to see any evidence that she is correct.

[wayne1948]

Thanks Judge.But back to my Q if it has no tax IS it roadworthy!!! I dont think it is?.
Wayne.

[JudgeJ]

It is a big leap in logic, Wayne, to describe a car with no valid car tax as unroadworthy. My dictionary defines the word roadworthy as �fit for use or travel�. I would argue that lack of the correct documentation does not affect its roadworthiness. Even a lack of an MoT test certificate does not render a vehicle unroadworthy. The vehicle may well be in perfectly good mechanical condition (and hence fit for use or travel) but you should not use it because it has not been tested as prescribed by the law.

However, this argument is unnecessary. If we take the Diamond policy conditions provided by Ethel as �typical� the insurers do not seek to void the insurance in the event of a vehicle being unroadworthy. As I pointed out yesterday, their conditions (page 21, para. 3) clearly state that if they consider that the condition of the vehicle contributed towards an accident they will still provide cover, but at Road Traffic Act levels only. It is hard to imagine how the lack of a tax disc could make such a contribution. But even taking the definition at its worst and accepting that lack of tax makes the vehicle unroadworthy, cover is still not invalidated.

If they could, iInsurers would leap at the chance to avoid payment for claims involving untaxed cars, and would clearly spell this out in their policy conditions without hiding behind terms such as �roadworthiness� where interpretation was an issue. Also, as I said yesterday, if your contention is correct, prosecutions for lack of tax would always be accompanied by a prosecution for no insurance. These two things just do not happen. For those reasons, and for the reasons outlined above, I maintain that I am correct.